SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: American Spirit who wrote (8520)5/16/2006 6:22:27 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) of 71588
 
Clinton put in place the law that required him to testify and then he committed perjury in his testimony. Even if "Starr and the right wing were just trying to find some dirt on Clinton because they couldn't ding him any other way", was true it wouldn't mean that Clinton did not in fact commit perjury. The argument you made was that Clinton should not have had to testify in the case that he committed perjury, or that if he did have to testify he shouldn't have to testify about his other sexual relationships. And you know I might agree with that, but I can't have any sympathy for him since he made the law go in to effect, and because the law didn't only affect him. If the state government that he was governor of is going to go after people based on the law, than if Clinton runs afoul of it he shouldn't get special treatment.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News